Questions about the teapot investigation

Police explained the delay in reaching a conclusion saying "it took time to talk to those involved, particularly members of public who were in the cafe" But no investigator has spoken to me ... and I was standing right there. (pic: stuff.co.nz)

So, it’s been announced the cameraman who recorded the pre-election ‘cup of tea’ between John Key and John Banks in November last year won’t be prosecuted. Stuff.co.nz reported:

Police will not lay charges over the “teapot tape” saga and say freelance cameraman Bradley Ambrose has received a warning. Assistant Police Commissioner Malcolm Burgess held a press conference this afternoon and said police had resolved the case. While he only received a warning, Ambrose’s actions were illegal, Burgess said.

Illegal? Oh really? That’s an opinion, surely? Perhaps a qualified one, but an opinion not tested in court, I’d say. Unlike the ‘organised criminal group’ charges which fell over last week.

“We were satisfied on this occasion that there was [prima facie evidence]. But police decided there was not sufficient public interest in the matter going to court, he said. “I reached the view that a prosecution was not required in this instance.”

Not sufficient public interest? Oh. I see.

In the view of police investigators, the recording was “most likely” on purpose, but at the least “reckless”. Burgess said he would still advise media organisations not to play the tape

Oh, so the police ‘advise’ media organisations not to play the tape? Why? Is that another ‘shot across the bows’ of the news media? So, there’s insufficient ‘public interest’ in prosecuting the guy who recorded it! Why would there be more ‘public interest’ in prosecuting media outlets who distribute it?

Asked why the inquiry took so long, Burgess said it took time to talk to those involved, particularly members of public who were in the cafe.

That’s intriguing. They spoke to the public? Funny thing: I was there, in the cafe (see blue circle in the frame from Fairfax video) … and, although I think I can credibly be called an eye witness, I haven’t been approached by anyone investigating the case to discuss what I observed happen that afternoon — and I was standing right at the table.

Is it possible a sense of constitutional decorum seeped into the police investigation? Such that they decided not to interview the journos there? Or, having issued ‘advice’ and search warrants to news media organizations in the lead-up to the general election (and creating headlines around the world thereby) did the police perhaps think better of inviting the qualified witnesses available in for a quiet chat … over a cup of tea?

3 Comments »

Well, according to the NZ Herald today, police DID speak to some selected members of the fourth estate about what they saw transpire at Urban Cafe that afternoon.

In a fairly toughly worded editorial, the paper again defends the news media (and the Herald in particular) from John Key’s allegations of scurrilousness … and discloses police interviews with journos did take place.

It suited the political times, or so Mr Key’s advisers thought, to turn this into a sprawling week of allegations against the media. We were, predictably and unimaginatively, likened to the News of the World, the UK tabloid closed after hacking a murdered girl’s mobile phone, among many other outrages. Then, Mr Key claimed we would publish parents’ private discussions of suicidal children. And when those preposterous attacks fell flat, he shrugged that the police had time to investigate this case because National had lowered the crime rate.

As it happens, the police took months to locate those who also drank coffee near the two politicians that day, to take pro-forma statements from a range of news photographers and journalists – including one whom they didn’t realise had stayed inside the cafe drinking coffee because he considered it a public place – and to work out a way to let the whole sorry mess drop without further embarrassment.

The paper makes clear their view of the National Party leader’s so-called stand on principle …

The police announcement conveniently coincided with Mr Key being in Korea, responding through a brief press release. He noted the police claim the cameraman’s actions were “unlawful” but even he could not try to make much out of this sorry business. He did not believe a prosecution was “now necessary” and thought all could now move on.

Sadly, that should have been his view at the time. It was a stance he seemed incapable of adopting because of a misguided mission to stop what he imagined to be a “slippery slope” of media intrusion. There is no slope, slippery or otherwise, in the coverage of political or public affairs. There is a slippery slope, however, in police inquiries arising from political discomfort.

The police should never be used as attack dogs for enraged (or embarrassed?) politicians. I still shudder at the Mugabe-like image of the Prime Minister summoning police to his Beehive office and laying a formal complaint — instructing them to investigate.

Yesterday’s long-time-coming pathetic backdown by police was predictable except for the confusing messages. It may prove to be a significant milestone in John Key’s populist fairy tale. Or not.

OPINION: A sorry, grubby, absurd episode in this country’s political history has finally been consigned to the footnotes, where it belongs.

That’s not to say the ending to the teapot tapes story was any less unsavoury than each of the chapters that preceded it.

The police decision today to warn Bradley Ambrose – but not to charge him – suits the complainant, Prime Minister John Key, perfectly.

… And yet, a faint stench still hangs over the whole saga. In the police reckoning, the recording was serious enough to pursue with three part-time staff executing search warrants on newsrooms during an election campaign.

But it was not serious enough that police would bother chasing down whoever it was that published what appeared to be a version of the tape online. What’s more, a simple apology letter appears to have been the key to getting the supposed law-breaker off.

The impression left by the comments of police and Key in the wake of today’s decision is that taking matters any further was just not worth it.

Then why all the fuss in the first place, especially if law-breaking has been established by police? Key got himself, via the law, in front of a mildly embarrassing recording being released during his campaign for re-election.

That was his right, but it doesn’t make the whole business feel any less wrong.

The hostility toward ‘da media’ that is being emoted by some in positions of political power and their proxies is very obvious.
Brushed off lightly by such spokesmodels is the pseudo-constitutional outrage (I mean it) of police being sent into news organizations with search warrants and being sent warnings by police pointing out the penalties of publishing ‘private conversations’ (arm twisting, in other words) during an election campaign.

Some might say I’m bring precious, but that kind of attempted control and manipulation of the ‘free’ press is a step too far, and demonstrates an arrogance that is out of place — and is usually punished in the voting booth. Eventually.

John Armstrong’s line about a blind spot on John Key’s political attenae seems right:

Certainly, nothing has enraged the Prime Minister more than the taping of his brief conversation with Banks.

Of course, he was within his rights to lay a complaint – and this only enhanced his standing with many voters.

Politically, it was folly when coupled with his refusal to divulge the contents of the tape. It may well have been the difference between Winston Peters making it back to Parliament or not.

Key would not let it go. It seemed to create a blind spot in his political antennae. Fortunately for National, normal transmission now seems to have been restored.